On Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:27:14 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>  On 7/17/2013 10:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 18 July 2013 14:34, meekerdb <mee...@verizon.net> <javascript:> wrote:
>  On 7/17/2013 8:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 17 July 2013 05:37, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> <javascript:> 
> wrote:
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
> Why not?  Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable
> property.  The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is computable.
> So I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Or are you asking how "k" came to
> be associated with "broken line" or how the written letter "k" was
> associated with the phonetic sound of "k"?
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between the
> phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer
> can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba,
> but a person can.
> There's nothing inherently "curvy" about bouba. It's just an
> accidental of our programming. Intelligent aliens may have completely
> different aesthetics, although there may be commonalities if it could
> be shown that thinking a particular way has survival value. For
> example, there is a correlation between symmetry and beauty because
> (it is speculated) asymmetry is associated with disease, and your
> genes won't do as well if you choose a diseased mate. But other
> aesthetic preferences probably have no rational basis.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "rational" or what Craig means by "arbitrary".
> I think "kiki" is sharp and abrupt and "bouba" is smooth and cruvy because
> of the way we have to move our mouths to make those sounds.  This is an
> accident of evolution.  Whales, for example would make the sounds
> differently and this might create a different sound/shape correlation for
> them.  Does that mean that the human correlation is not rational or is
> arbitrary?  It seems to me it is empirical.
>  I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that
> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not.
> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics
> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an
> immaterial soul.
> Exactly so.  But that's what Craig is trying to deny.  By saying the 
> correlation is arbitrary, he thinks that implies that it could only be 
> physically realized by a god or some agent inserting it "by hand" and so a 
> computer could only have it by a human programmer inserting it and that 
> would be "arbitrary".  

Not at all. I am saying that the correlation is aesthetic-experiential. It 
is grounded in a unity of sense which cuts across the multiplicity of  
sense modalities. Computation follows this unity, not leads it. This is my 
assertion that I challenge you to dispute rationally. I have never believed 
in a god or agent inserting anything by hand. That just shows me that you 
are not even seeing the first premises of my view. You argue with a straw 

I'll link you to my new diagram as well, which ideally would be 
three-dimensional, but it shows the proper place of computation in the 



> Brent

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to